Welcome to Ships Nostalgia, the world's greatest online community for people worldwide with an interest in ships and shipping. Whether you are crew, ex-crew, ship enthusiasts or cruisers, this is the forum for you. And what's more, it's completely FREE.

Royal Navy commanders were in uproar yesterday after it was revealed that almost half of the Fleet's 44 warships are to be mothballed as part of a Ministry of Defence cost-cutting measure.
The Government has admitted that 13 unnamed warships are in a state of reduced readiness, putting them around 18 months away from active service. Today The Daily Telegraph can name a further six destroyers and frigates that are being proposed for cuts.

A need to cut the defence budget by £250 million this year to meet spending requirements has forced ministers to look at drastic measures.

MoD sources have admitted it is possible that the Royal Navy will discontinue one of its major commitments around the world at a time when Sir Jonathon Band, the First Sea Lord, has said more ships are needed to protect the high seas against terrorism and piracy.

Blair and co were never lovers of the forces. All CND and worshippers of mother Russia. Now in the process of achieving their goal of destroying our Navy, Army and RAF. An easy way of handing us over to the tender mercies of the United ??? states of Europe.

It is terrible to say we need another Falklands, but in a way, I'd agree. However are we not in the process of conducting war at the moment against 2 countries, with a possible 2 in the pipeline, one of which will need the navy for blockading duties?
There is also the 'threat' from Europe who seem very keen on being able to control everything in Britain, including the armed forces, and having nothing to do with the Americans, which in the past have helped to liberate most of them from an invading force. There's gratitude for you.
As someone has also said, many of the polictition in today's cabinet were always against things like the Nuclear Umbella, Nuclear power stations, large armed forces, etc. Talk about leopard's changing spots. There was one country in Europe with a comminist party, I can't remember which, when it heard about what was going on in Russia in their name, they disbanded themselves. It would have been interesting to see how these people would have survived under Soviet rule. (No human rights there, even today).
East verses West, look at which one collapsed. Many people in the East say they were better of then, then today. The same can be said about Cuba. So why do many of them want to come here? And why did many in t5he West want to adopt Soviet Policies (CND, etc). We faced a threat then, (or did we). Many of the solidors in these counties where ordinary people like as. The bigger threat is now a religion. They flee their own country to come here and set up a system they fled in their homeland. Many live quietly among us, but the minority, while wanting to live here, but not adopt our way of life. Europe was responsible for much of this. (Border controls)

That's my two bobs worth on this and I say sorry for getting a bit carried away.

The report on the front page of today's Telegraph is almost a word-for-word repeat of a report in Jane's Defence Weekly of 20 December last year. The MoD response is exactly the same.
In this week's Jane's there is a further report that these proposed cuts in the active destroyer and frigate force are part of a menu of possible savings from all branches of the armed forces to find £150 million to prevent a Defence budget overspend. The MoD refute this and claim that the 2007-2008 Budget is not yet established.
It is clear however, that a major part of the MoD problem is the continued massive cost over-runs by BAE. In addition to the £157 million additional cost for the Type 45 programme mentioned in the Telegraph article the Astute submarine construction cost increased by a further £164 million during 2006 alone. Both programmes are now years behind schedule and of course the Typhoon and Nimrod aircraft are far worse.
It seems that the Royal Navy cannot afford the problems created by its major supplier.

IF we bought 'off the peg' planes, ships, weapons etc from abroad, there would no doubt be a big hue and cry about it. All the MP's etc local to BAE, suppliers etc etc would understandably be up in arms. Loss of jobs would be high on their list of complaints.

BUT, we would have ships, planes and equipment that worked (probably first time), they would be delivered on time and on budget (probably cheaper than anything home grown), might well work better, and there would therefore be more money for 'front line' use, rather than paying huge for over-runs in budgets.

Devil's Advocate hat off.

How do we resolve the mess we seem to be in now? I honestly don't know, hence the devil's advocate approach to start some discussion.

the thin edge of the wedge ,of this situation,started when we left the far east in the 1970,s.then as well went Malta and hong Kong.
they felt there was no more need to have such a large royal navy ,the money they could save ,whoops then we had the falklands,but still the M.O.D became complaint,and down this silly road we went,
ten years on we have one person saying ,help out here and there,and on the other hand we have another person saying sorry we have no money to cover exter cost,s.
what has this country come too,i am afraid we need new blood in the M.O.D to wake this tired country up.

Its not a very popular point for obvious reasons but I think Meechingman is about right on this one. In fact the ships would not even have to be brand new! I've said before that the U.S. are paying off perfectly adequate ships that would probably be a better bet than the T45.
If we even had "some" of the ships (and aircraft) that the US has decided are old hat in the last 10 years, we would have a better equipped Navy than the one we have at present, and probably in the future the way things are looking.

Perhaps I am being too simplistic but what completely baffles me in this whole sorry affair is how can such as BAE justify a £321 million overspend and yet still expect the taxpayer to make up the difference. When I worked in industry, a job was estimated and you then quoted a price for it. If the estimators got it wrong bang went your profit but what you did not do was to go back to the purchaser and expect them to bail you out. I sometimes think that the BBC TV comedy programme "Yes Minister" was definately based on what happens in the real life corridors of power!
Peter4447

The focus of the defence budget at the moment is in Afghanistan and Iraq with the Army, and even that is much mismanaged.

The Navy will have the cuts imposed upon them, and I only hope and pray that the decisions the politicians make now don't cause us problems in the near future. We have been here before and we just and only just got away with it then.

This country is taking on far too many worldwide commitments and the Government is shamefully trying to manage it on a shoestring. We are an island race and the sea is our lifeline our number one concern should be our own back yard.

I would certainly not like to see another Falklands type war and to be honest those that made the remarks earlier in the thread were, I am sure, not serious. There are a few members on this site who have experience of conflict and the effects of conflict. Go and read the thread by Stan Mayes on WW2 convoys. Who would wish for any of that to happen again - even small scale.

I fear for our Navy now and wonder if the new carriers will ever see the slipway.

Regards

__________________"If Blood was the price
We had to pay for our freedom
Then the Merchant Ship Sailors
Paid it in full”

I agree with most of the comments previously posted except another war. The labour party has never cherised the armed forces(and I am not being political, merely stating what I believe to be true) Now the news today that promotions within the Royal Navy have been suspended or delayed reinforce my view that a labour party is in danger of putting my country in harms way.
Regards
Leo

Where the hell is this number of 44 ships coming from anyway? To the casual observer, 44 may sound like a decent amount of vessels, if it was made up of Destroyers and Frigates it would be, but surely they are including a lot of minor vessels. A tad misleading to the general public I think.

I never said I wanted another war, I have already served during the Gulf war in 1991, that was bad enough. I was only saying, it would take a Falklands type of war to postpone the reducing of the fleet. for a few more years, but lets face it... it would be a short term solution for one problem which will raise it's ugly head again in the future. The government have got this in their heads, and like a Jack Russell with a piece of cloth...they will not let it go.

This thread started with the Telegraph report that the First Sea Lord has said the RN needs more ships to counter terrorism and piracy. I can certainly understand where Strawberry is coming from on this because surely the need is for less high tech, state of the art, multi-million pound ships and more good, solid dependable work horses regardless of whether they are purchased second-hand as surplus to the US Navies needs or not - just look at the role the conventional Frigate 'Yarmouth' played in the Falklands and earned for itself the nickname The Crazy Y in the process. I'll bet the First Sea Lord would be overjoyed if he suddenly found the Fleet was to be enlarged by 10 new gun armed Leander Class frigates.
It seems we never learn by our mistakes, old they may have been but what would have happened without those 50 four funnelled lease-lend destroyers we accquired from the US at the start of the Second World War.
Peter4447

I have just finished reading a work of fiction set in the not too distant future that covers the Falkland Island war (again) and this scenario actually condemns the current and previous labour governments for the defence cuts over X amount of years in the UK, just seems strange how the author can get it right a few years before it actually happens,maybe he does some really good research. if anyone is interested the author is Patrick Robinson and the book is Ghost Force, Dale

I am more than a little puzzled as to what you all deem this large navy and its accompanying massive expenditures to be required for? It is also worth pointing out that the two eras of major defense cut backs were the "loss of empire" period and the end of the cold war. Both took place under Conservative governments. Prime Minsister Wilson's withdrawal from "East of Suez" was no more than a confirmation of reality. As a confirmed expat of many years now I do not follow British politics as closely as I used to but I would be surprised if you were to find much by way of CND or communist affliations in the background of Mr. Blair or any of his government.
CBoots

How does a chair cost 1000 pounds I know they are covered in leather BUT!!!

Read my previous posting about wasting money. It seems that it would not be wise to put these people in charge of the local corner shop. If they did some good house keeping there would be enough money for the Health Education and the M.O.D depts. I and my wife are both war babies so nothing is wasted